We're pretty much in agreement w/o actually saying so. It's, like, tantamount to our being in agreement. I'll make a few comments, definitely NOT in order of importance.
The first is more of a question than a comment. Is there a substantive difference between "bare naked title alone" and "bare legal title"?
The next is this. In #48 you say It seems that the Rule here is this: If we have a permanent easement and retain the property, we can maybe recognize gain, but never loss.. And you say In that case, we simply offset proceeds against basis and do not recognize loss.. And a large part of the reasoning for that is stated thrice in #48. since we still retain the property and we retain the property and and retain the property. Thrice, mind you, although I may have shown them in a different order than you used them.
Now that phrase is subject to some misinterpretation. Is the property the entire property pre-easement, or just the property made subject to the easement? That question becomes important as a way to distinguish my example in #49 as well as your Rev Rul 72-255 (in #50) from facts like in Inaja Land and my Rev Rul 68-291 (in #47).
But I do see redemptive clarification later when you build on this: Some key words here, including within the Pub reference above, are “beneficial interest” and whether or not we retain that. . It still might help to specify whether the impossibility of allocating basis to the easement land is present in the facts, as opposed to the clear ease of such allocation in my example in #49. That also should have been clarified in Rev Rul 72-255, and it's not too late for that.
Another thought I had is whether it matters to our conclusion whether the age of the earth is like 4 billion years old, you know or is it only in the low to mid thousands of years. The ever fun science/religion thingy. I conclude it does not matter.